The Republican Party’s current infrastructure spending bill is missing one item: a provision establishing federal siting authority for electric transmission lines. Oddly, this idea has few champions in Congress and only tepid support from environmental groups.

That's because its an awful idea that nobody supports. Congress doesn't support it. And do you know why that is? Because states and citizens oppose it.

While natural gas is limited by its geographic sourcing, electricity generation can take place anywhere. The days of coal mine mouth electric generation plants and long distance transmission lines are over. It's much more efficient to move fuel to generation plants located closer to load. And it's much easier to move fuel than it is to build electric transmission lines.

We don't need federal authority for transmission lines.

Problematically, the best locations for wind and solar power plants are far from population centers—in the windy central plains or the sunny southwestern deserts.

That's absolutely not true. The "best locations" for wind plants are offshore, conveniently located within just a few miles of the largest population centers. The "best locations" for solar are right on your own roof, where source and sink align to create the most reliable system.

Also not true. When consumers were given an opportunity to purchase renewable energy transmission capacity from the Midwest, there were no takers. Whether it was a matter of price (new transmission will produce a cost to consumers in the billions of dollars), or a matter of favoring local resources, or both, consumers rejected Clean Line Energy Partner's plans for new transmission. Consumers who say they want "clean" energy in a random survey are never given complete information about how much this "clean" energy is going to cost, and when the rubber hits the road, consumers vote with their wallets. Any consumer truly dedicated to a "need" for clean power can make it happen at home. We don't need big utilities and expensive new infrastructure to make it happen.

Conservatives claim that federal transmission siting authority would threaten state sovereignty or landowner property rights, but those claims ring hollow. Why are those values worth protecting against transmission lines but not against natural gas pipelines?

Those claims don't ring hollow to the affected landowners, and those are the only parties who matter in this instance. Landowners, frankly, don't give a shit if some policy wonk in the big city thinks their legislators' protection of private property rights sounds hypocritical. Those policy wonks won't be voting in the next local election, but the landowners will.

Why is it that these liberal wind bags demand that you abandon your own beliefs if you don't support theirs? "Okay, so you're against transmission lines, therefore you must also be concerned about my issue." No, we're not. Attempts to reframe the argument to paint opposition as hypocritical serve no one and are just a waste of time. But while we're on the subject of hypocritical arguments, that's where your environmental groups come in. They attempt to use landowners to serve their environmental goals by latching onto non-environmental arguments, such as eminent domain. And then they get caught supporting eminent domain for electric transmission lines, but not for gas lines. And then the people start to feel used.

Dude, your argument is crap. Federal permitting and siting for electric transmission has been attempted many times over the years and it has consistently failed. Elected officials know it can't happen. That's why they don't support it.

Well it's about time you started fighting back, AEP. Mysterious Wind Catcher hate group Protect our Pocketbooks thinks it can continue to blow smoke up everyone's rear end without revealing its financiers. Ya know what? That can't happen. The credibility of a group spending buckets of dark money in an attempt to derail an energy proposal just can't pass the sniff test. At some point, the ones responsible for Protect our Pocketbooks are going to be outed. And how embarrassing is that going to be?

Reporters in Arkansas seem pretty curious about who's funding Protect our Pocketbooks, and a curious reporter is like a dog with a bone. They don't stop until they find the answer.

Give a listen to this report by NPR's Jacqueline Froelich. Froelich gets the lobbyist/attorney who incorporated the mysterious group on the air, and he sounds rather peeved when asked who is funding his group. Justin Allen says, "As a 501(c)4, as it's right to do under state & federal law, supporters and contributors are anonymous and choose to remain that way."

Well, for now. At some point, Protect our Pocketbooks is going to have to file an IRS-990 (if it really is registered with the IRS like it claims*) and then all bets are off. What kind of information is revealed in an IRS-990? Total receipts. Total expenditures (including who they paid and what for). Total end of year assets. Compensation paid to employees. Names of its Board of Directors or Board of Trustees members, and any compensation received by these parties. An IRS-990 must be made public. You can only hide so long, Protect our Pocketbooks.

Now wouldn't it be better to just slink away and hope nobody follows up after you file your taxes?

You know what happens when a person tells a lie? They have to tell supporting lies, and then lies to support their supporting lies. Lies upon lies upon lies until even they can't keep their own lies straight. I love when that happens!

And its not just NPR. Arkansas Times also wants to know who is funding Protect our Pocketbooks. Except the author makes some wrong conclusions about whether the organization is "political."

Little is known about the opponents. A consultant for Renewable Arkansas, a nonprofit offshoot of a group called Americans for Affordable Energy, has placed an op-ed article recently opposing the SWEPCO project. The author, Grant Tennille, former director of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission, questioned the reliability of the savings estimate and also said it would provide an advantage to SWEPCO in continuing to sell excess electricity from existing coal-fired plants in Arkansas into the open market. Bringing in wind lowers the company's overall cost of power and makes the sales more profitable, he wrote. He has not responded to my email asking about his employer on the issue. He suggests, by the way, that SWEPCO should invest in solar power in Arkansas.

But Justin Allen told Froelich that there's no association between the Windfall Coalition and Protect our Pocketbooks. Protect our Pocketbooks claims to be for renewable energy and distributed generation. Distributed generation is roughly defined as many small, local generators located close to electrical load. Where are a bunch of small, local, renewable generators going to get the kinds of money being spent by Protect our Pocketbooks? There's a huge amount of money in play here, which means there's a huge amount of money to be made by someone if Wind Catcher fails. Protect our Pocketbooks own spokesman claims that SWEPCO will continue to generate and sell power from its existing coal-fired power plants. Sounds like Wind Catcher isn't going to hurt fossil fuel interests, so why would they spend buckets of money on biased TV commercials? Think about it.

The answer is pretty simple. I've got a pretty good idea where the money is coming from, but just like Protect our Pocketbooks, I don't have to reveal any information I don't want to. The only problem with a failure to reveal information is that you may lose the public's trust. Lose the public's trust and your entire effort to manipulate public opinion falls flat. Not so much a problem for me, since I don't have a dog in the Wind Catcher fight, but it becomes a huge problem for Protect our Pocketbooks. Without a gullible public who takes their ads at face value and acts without thinking, Protect our Pocketbooks is a gigantic waste of money.

Which brings us to... AEP, finally attempting to fight back with a news release directed towards the veracity of Protect our Pocketbook's claims and its source of funding.

“A group known only as Protect Our Pocketbooks – which does not reveal the names of its backers or the sources of its substantial funding – is presenting misleading information to the public, including manipulation of statements by Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson,” said Brian Bond, SWEPCO Vice President of External Affairs.

Gov. Hutchinson wrote to the Arkansas Public Service Commission on Jan. 11 asking that the benefits of federal corporate tax cuts be passed on by utilities to Arkansas families and businesses. “In its latest television ad, Protect Our Pocketbooks misleadingly associates the governor’s comments about corporate federal tax cuts with the group’s campaign against Wind Catcher,” Bond said.

“The anonymous, tax-exempt opposition group claims that Arkansas gets none of the benefits of the project, which is incorrect and misleading. Arkansas will receive the benefits of generation with no fuel costs, cost savings immediately and over the life of the project, the full value of the federal Production Tax Credits available to the project, and the economic development benefits of wind turbine components being manufactured in Arkansas,” Bond said.

I was really hoping for the entertainment of a competing front group funded by AEP, but they chose to take the high road this time. And you can take it from the horse's mouth, AEP knows a fake grassroots support group when it sees one. It's been responsible for enough of its own over the years.

But at least, for now, they're slapping back, and a huge, public bitch-slapping contest can still be fun for everyone!

And, remember, I'm worse than a reporter. I never forget. I'm sort of patient that way.

...the answer is NOT"transmission lines for wind and solar projects." I'll spare you the lecture about verb tenses (but you can get it here) but basically there are three verb tenses -- past, present and future. Clean Line has not built anything, therefore to say it "builds" is incorrect. Clean Line is not currently "building" a transmission line. Clean Line has not "built" a transmission line in the past. Clean Line perhaps hopes it "will build" a transmission line in the future, but I don't think that's likely. The only thing Clean Line seems to be building anymore is Michael Skelly's ego.

What purpose did the Houston Chronicle article serve? Was the reporter actually trying to make a point? That renewable energy isn't "lonely" in Houston? Michael Skelly may be about as lonely as they come these days. Nobody seems to care about the transmission lines he hopes to build anymore. It's all about Michael Skelly, just like it was all about Michael Skelly back in August, when Skelly practiced heroics with his feet on a table during Hurricane Harvey. And back in 2014, when he showcased his heroism in building a compound of historic homes in one of those terrible "poorer" neighborhoods. Building -- something that was actually done. Not something one aspires to in order to pretend it's happening. Michael Skelly sure has "built" quite the ego.

Michael Skelly, the company's president, told Arkansas Business that the direct-current project, which would have transmitted 4,000 megawatts of renewable energy from Western Oklahoma to eastern Tennessee, is basically on life support.

"Everybody knows that if you can delay a project, you can hurt it or force a different outcome," Skelly said after devoting nearly nine years and some $100 million in private investor money to the project, which would have crossed 12 Arkansas counties with 200-foot-high transmission towers. "We're ending up with an outcome that's just fine for us business-wise, but not as good for Arkansas."

Actually, Arkansas will be just fine without a "clean" line. The project was never purposed to benefit Arkansans anyhow. It was about Michael Skelly and his investors making a bundle of money riding the renewable energy wave to sell a bunch of clueless people something they didn't want or need. Except it turns out they really didn't want or need it, and the project went broke. Clean Line gladly cannibalized its Plains & Eastern project and sold the juiciest cut to NextEra. What's left isn't even good for soup. Not only doesn't Clean Line's Arkansas and Tennessee assets not connect with anything, but the company withdrew their interconnection requests. There's nothing to interconnect. Clean Line is over.

As far as that delay thing goes, he's partly right though. It may have turned out oh so differently for Michael Skelly and Clean Line if they had honestly attempted to engage landowners along the route and find out what would inspire them to sign a voluntary right of way agreement. Instead, Clean Line acted like an arrogant, entitled, smart ass, figuring it only had to make it look like it was negotiating with landowners, while desperately attempting to acquire the power of eminent domain to force involuntary easements. Any cost conscious, astute developer would have given up many years ago, however. Only Michael Skelly continued for 9 years, wasting increasing amounts of funds supplied by his silly investors. Business-wise, Clean Line is a bust. I'm thinking they didn't get anywhere near the $100M they spent on Plains & Eastern in the NextEra sale. Only Skelly's ego is pretending that was a good outcome. Maybe if he says it enough, money to repay the investors will fall from the sky? Maybe if he says it enough, he won't be a 50-something year old failure?

So Skelly is pretending he and his company are still viable in order to maintain the old ego. But what's wrong with Vicki Ayres-Portman? Did someone forget to send her the memo about Clean Line's sale of its Oklahoma assets, or is she quite insane? I received numerous copies of this article last week. It says:

Clean Line Energy spokeswoman Vicki Ayres-Portman explained the impact wind energy has had on local county budgets and what it would mean to be the member of a state that divests in wind energy at Monday's get-together.Ayres-Portman was taking the place of originally scheduled speaker Mark Yates, Oklahoma director for the Wind Coalition.“Most of you have probably heard there are two bills running on the floor of the house today that would have a detrimental impact on the future and possibly retroactive on wind development,” she said. “So Mark felt like he really needed to stay at the capitol today and asked if I would stop by on my way to the capitol and give you guys an update on wind energy in Oklahoma.”

What interest does Clean Line have in Oklahoma wind at this point? Or are they simply a registered lobbying agent for NextEra? And why was Vicki on her way to the capitol? Clean Line sold its Oklahoma assets, remember?

Ayres-Portman detailed the well publicized and still working 9-year-old Clean Line project set to run from the Oklahoma Panhandle to Tennessee. The $2.5 billion, 4,000 megawatt project that was set to provide energy to customers in Arkansas, Tennessee and other markets stalled recently. The issues hamstringing the plans come after President Trump began pushing coal and nuclear power options."The market has really changed since Clean Line started this effort eight, nine years ago,” Ayres-Portman said. “At that time, the bioenergy centers to the East were really looking forward to more renewables. We had a new President elected. And although I agree with a lot of great things he’s done, one of the things, pushing coal and nuclear has really dampened the power purchase agreements from big utilities that were looking at doing renewables, whether that was natural gas, wind or solar.”So those companies that had memorandums of understanding to come onto the Clean Line transmission line, have pulled away from those agreement.

Still working? What the hell does that mean? How can Clean Line be "still working" in Oklahoma when it doesn't own anything in Oklahoma? The demise of Clean Line is Trump's fault? Anything but! The demise of Clean Line is Clean Line's fault. It failed to attract any customers. No customers, no revenue, no "builds." What "companies" had memorandums of understanding to "come onto the Clean Line?" No company had such an understanding, so there's nothing to "pull away" from. Clean Line acts like it has some firm commitments that were cancelled after Trump was elected. That's just not true. Ayres-Portman looks like she's quite insane in that article. Maybe she'd like to make some corrections so she doesn't "build" herself a reputation as a fabulist?

There sure is a lot of money being poured into the battle to own and control the wind in Oklahoma. If only the citizens of the state received a fraction of what's being spent on legal bills, lobbyists, public relations and front groups.

Say what? Front groups? You all know how much I love a good (badly constructed) front group! I was really trying to ignore AEP's Wind Catcher project, but now their competition has constructed a really ridiculous front group. It's an accident I simply can't drive by without rubbernecking.

AEP's Wind Catcher project is a ginormous wind farm under construction in Western Oklahoma by Invenergy that will be purchased by AEP upon completion. AEP wants to build a 300+ mile "generation tie line" to connect the wind farm with one of AEP's large regional substations in eastern Oklahoma, and then distribute the energy to its customers in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. AEP wants captive ratepayers in those four states to pay for its project, plus a generous return on AEP's investment. AEP has greased its project and is trying to ram it through state utility commission approvals, pretending it's some kind of tax subsidy emergency. If states don't approve, their ratepayers lose big tax handouts! Ahem... where do tax handouts come from? From taxes. Who pays taxes? The people... the same people who would "benefit" from their own tax payments. Yahoo. This project is a non-starter and not really worth my time. While enough schmoozing and behind closed doors hanky-panky may get the project approved in Oklahoma, the other states get nothing but the bill. Increased electric rates for all. Wind Catcher isn't going to be happening so there's no need to get all excited, and certainly no need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a front group opposing it.

But somebody did. Somebody who claims to be

... dedicated to fostering clean energy sources that best serve the needs of local consumers.

Protect our Pocketbooks supports clean energy, but we believe that energy infrastructure investments should be made locally.

Well, hey, great! I support that, too! But probably not for the same reasons. And I don't have enough money to buy a fancy lobbyist-lawyer to incorporate a front group about my belief, and I can't afford TV commercials about it. But I do have a website, just not as slick, and not designed for you to "take action now!" and lobby lawmakers to support my idea.

So, we support local clean energy sources, do we? Which ones? Where? What are we doing instead of importing energy from Oklahoma? Doesn't say. We're all about the Wind Catcher hate and have no better ideas to promote. Lawmakers love that shit. No, really. They love to listen to constituents whine about stuff they don't want without coming up with and supporting better ideas. You'd think someone spending all this money would have a better grasp of what motivates lawmakers. I mean they could at least pretend they're for something real.

But if they were actually for something, then they'd reveal who's funding this front group. Supposedly it's "clean energy." Would the fossil fuel industry really make a front group claiming to be a supporter of "clean energy?" That's what all the enviro-wackos who support big wind will think... that the fossil fuel industry must be behind it. Just like they think the fossil fuel industry pays me big bucks to write this blog (Hey! Koch Brothers! You're way, way past due on my payments! I'm still waiting for the first one to arrive!). I'm not so sure. Is it more likely a shady front group would skirt the truth instead of out and out lying? So what if this front group is being financed by other players in the wind industry who want to stop Wind Catcher so they can develop Oklahoma wind and transmission instead? There's a huge gold mine for someone who ends up owning the Oklahoma wind.

A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. The front group is perhaps the most easily recognized use of the third party technique.

This group has no contact info on its website. It has no physical office. You cannot contact them. I suppose you could write to them at PO Box 3835 in Little Rock, which is the principal address for the organization used by its incorporator. Just don't expect a reply.

This group has a slick, professional website that seems to be directed at inspiring people to "take action." Political "action."

This group has videos that people say are TV commercials. TV commercials? Do you have any idea how much it costs to advertise on TV? Who is paying the advertising bills? Remember, this group has no funders, no members, and no directors.

There's an awful lot of money being spent trying to convince people to oppose the Wind Catcher project. Someone must stand to make a real bundle if this project fails. Who could it be?

But at least Wind Catcher has accomplished one thing so far... it knocked the bottom out of Clean Line's Plains & Eastern project. Here's Clean Line, trying for the last 9 years to build a transmission line between proposed wind farms in western OK and purported eastern "demand." When along comes AEP, not only building and owning the actual wind farm, but proposing its own transmission line across Oklahoma to serve its own captive "demand." AEP could have simply built the wind farm and used Clean Line's proposed transmission line to get the wind to its demand. But it did not. Whoever owns the infrastructure gets the profits. AEP isn't splitting its profits with some wanna be utility like Clean Line. So what happens next? Clean Line intervenes in the Oklahoma Corporation Commission Wind Catcher case and tries to convince the OCC that its transmission line proposal is better than AEP's. Then a competitor of Invenergy (AEP's wind farm builder) buys up the Plains & Eastern Clean Line assets in Oklahoma. NextEra now owns Clean Line's transmission line assets (such as they are -- unconnected nothingness) and it also probably wants to develop wind in western Oklahoma, maybe even build some ginormous wind farm for a company like AEP. It can offer AEP a half-purchased, right of way across the state, plus the bonus of some pissed off landowners and stubborn Native Americans. Transmission fatigue is a thing AEP must surely recognize. Clean Line has spent the last 9 years pissing off the people along its proposed route. It's a trap!

First of all, there is no such thing as a "national energy grid." In fact, the U.S. has three distinct grid systems that don't really connect, so they're certainly not "national." Or perhaps they are trying to insinuate that the U.S. electric grid is some federally owned and government financed entity? That's not true either. Transmission lines are owned by many different entities, some for profit, and some not for profit, and some by private entities and some by government entities. The only thing that matters is that the regional transmission operators and balancing authorities keep the lights on in our communities. And they do, for the most part.

If I were to write a recipe for crashing the three separate and distinct grids, first I'd connect them all together in as many places as I could. The more connections, the more chances for massive, cascading failure. Then I'd eliminate all the small, diverse, local power generators and connect my massive "national" grid to just a few massive generators located thousands of miles from electric customers. It wouldn't take long for such a "national" grid to crash, we're talking massive failure that would take approximately forever to recover. And that's exactly the kind of system the Wind Energy Foundation's "report" urges us to "demand."

And let's talk about that word, "demand." The Wind Energy Foundation's "report" says that corporations are "demanding" more renewable energy. Excuse me, corporate America, who are you to "demand" anything. If you want renewable energy, then make it yourself. I'm pretty sure all your giant marts and factories have some pretty large rooftops and parking lots just perfect for installing your own solar farm. In fact, I demand that you do so. If you don't want to do that, then I demand that you pack up your corporate bindle and relocate to one of those those horribly rural areas where you think renewable energy comes from so you can obtain it from its source. You cannot demand that rural America sacrifice itself to become your power plant, much less demand a right of way across thousands of miles of rural America for massive new transmission lines to serve your urban corporate headquarters.

And furthermore, I demand that you pay for your renewable energy demand yourself. That's right, if you think using renewable energy makes you more attractive to your customers so that they will pay more for your products, then the cost of doing so is on you, not me.

The Wind Energy Foundation's report recommends that corporate America demand that regional transmission organizations order new transmission lines built to serve them. That's not how RTOs work, you silly twits. RTOs plan and operate their regional grids first and foremost for reliability, you know, keeping the lights on. RTOs also plan and operate new lines for economic purposes, presuming that new transmission lowers power prices in the region. And do you know why that is? It's because all lines planned and ordered by an RTO are cost allocated to the electric consumers who benefit. It's called a cost/benefit analysis. You've heard of that, right, corporate America? The one who gets the benefits from the new transmission line pays the cost of building and operating it. So who do you think gets the benefits from all the new renewable energy transmission lines you're demanding? You do, corporate America, you do!

So, you're willing to pay billions of dollars for all these new transmission lines you're demanding, right? And then you'll just roll those billions of dollars of expense into your production cost, and increase your prices accordingly, right? And consumers will jump at the chance to buy your overpriced products produced with "clean energy," right? Am I talking your language now?

I'm betting that if corporate America had to pay for all these new transmission lines that the Wind Energy Foundation is urging them to demand, all of a sudden renewable energy wouldn't be so important. It's only worth demanding if someone else is paying for it.

Ya know, wind energy companies are for profit businesses, too. They rake in the green by brainwashing everyone to be green. However, there's a limit to the amount of green John Q. Public is willing to pay for. The Wind Energy Foundation fills its own pockets first by manipulating corporate America like a stage full of marionettes.

"I demand renewable energy!"

"I demand more transmission!"

I demand that the Wind Energy Foundation take its "report" and shove it. I'm not paying for corporate renewable energy goals. The most reliable electrical system is local. Small, diverse, local generators connected to local users.

Just kidding! I'm sure Mario was kidding, too. If AEP was smart, it would have offered to buy the Plains and Eastern Clean Line, just to see what was behind Clean Line's ridiculous participation in the Oklahoma Corporation Commission regulatory proceedings for Wind Catcher. Whoopsie, AEP! You have to wear the dunce cap! I mean you didn't really believe Clean Line's testimony, did you? Have you been smelling your own fake, stilted testimony so long that you no longer recognize the scent?

What fun would it have been to disrupt Clean Line's secret deal with NextEra? Mario never put THAT in his testimony, did he?

What? You don't believe in the power of rainbow farts, AEP? Don't you know that success in the transmission business is 99% wishful thinking and 1% actual effort? Just look at how successful Clean Line has been dealing in fantasy and make believe for the past 9 years! What is wrong with you, AEP? Oh, the missed opportunities!

And when is Clean Line going to tell the OCC and the other parties that it no longer owns the Oklahoma portion of the Plains & Eastern Clean Line and therefore no longer has any standing to participate in the case? And when is NextEra going to file its petition to intervene out of time as the new owner of a project that was granted standing? Or does NextEra think it has inherited a seat at AEP's settlement table? And why would NextEra even be interested in the Wind Catcher proceedings any longer? It now has its very own "fully permitted" transmission project that it can use to ship wind from its own wind farms. Except it doesn't seem to have any load to serve, or any customers. NextEra can now play the part of Jan Brady, watching AEP flaunt its huge customer base, and dream of cutting it off...

Oh, what heartbreak caused by greed, deceit and envy, where nothing is as it seems and failure is always lurking just around the next corner....

So, Clean Line wants to pretend that because NextEra only bought the Oklahoma portion of the project that the remainder still held by Clean Line will someday become valuable. That crap isn't even fit for sausage. There is no value because there are no customers who want to buy at the TVA interconnection. In fact, it looks like Clean Line's TVA interconnection queue position has been withdrawn. That means Clean Line no longer wants to inject energy into the TVA region. Over. Done. Maybe NextEra has enough cash to speculate on the Oklahoma portion someday being viable, but even they don't think the portion from the Oklahoma border to Memphis is worth the risk.

And over in the ring to my left, the Rock Island Clean Line has fallen off the trapeze and broken every bone in its body. The clowns have been pantomiming continuing life support, but the audience knows it's a goner.

Over in the last ring, the Grain Belt Express lies gasping while the clowns are bringing in a string of potential buyers for pieces of its carcass in their cute, little cars. How many transmission executives can you fit into a garishly-painted VW beetle? And what portion of GBE does anyone think is viable?

Things seem to be winding down at Clean Line Energy Partners over the last month or so. The rats continue to abandon the mothership. Take a look at Clean Line's "Leadership" page and notice that a couple former executives are now missing. It looks to me like maybe the transmission folks are leaving, with only the wind energy people still on investor Bluescape's leash. I wonder if Bluescape is trying to salvage something out of its investment in Clean Line by jettisoning the loser transmission projects and focusing on more wind farms like Mesa Canyons?

The Rock Island Clean Line is dead. It can't use eminent domain in Iowa or Illinois.

The Grain Belt Express is on life support. Despite Clean Line's desperate attempt to get the Missouri Supreme Court to hear its case, there has been no response and the case has been scheduled to be heard in the Appeals Court next year. And, on the off chance that GBE succeeds on appeal, the Illinois courts must kill it because the Illinois Supreme Court already ruled in the RICL case that Clean Line isn't a public utility. Checkmate.

The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is a zombie. Despite the "participation" of the U.S. Department of Energy in that project, customers have stubbornly failed to materialize. It's been nearly two years since the DOE issued its "Record of Decision" that Clean Line thinks gives its project the okay to build. And still no customers in sight. According to E&E News:

While not yet ready to begin construction, Hurtado said the next big milestone isn't far off, and Clean Line has turned its focus to finding key customers.

"We've been at it for a while, and we're very close to the finish line," he said.

Clean Line has yet to announce any firm agreements with Southeast utilities for transmission. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking.

"We think that there's a time-sensitive opportunity," Hurtado said. "I'm not comfortable waiting too much longer. The sooner we can get this done, the better. There are always risks, and you want to manage that really prudently. We're already in pre-construction. The sooner we get into full-fledged construction, the better."

"Obviously, the trick is to make sure that you have capacity at the right price to the people that are actually winning the contracts in the Southeast," Hurtado said. "There's direct commercial discussions that are going on that are confidential. There are RFPs [requests for proposals], and that's still moving forward. It's part of our overall commercial discussions that we've got that are sort of focused, but they're all sort of in the works."

One potential customer, the Tennessee Valley Authority, so far hasn't shown an interest in taking transmission service from the Plains and Eastern.

TVA signed a memorandum of understanding with Clean Line in 2011, but the utility currently has no need for more energy on its system as its long-range plans show no demand growth for the next decade, said spokesman Scott Brooks.

And any older power plants being shut down by TVA are generally being replaced with natural-gas-fired generation, Brooks said.

A look at the Oklahoma Commerce Commission's docket (Case No. 201700267) for AEP's filing doesn't look promising. It seems most of the parties are against it, either because they don't want to shoulder the cost, or because there was no competition in selecting the wind generator. And AEP is trying to rush this through with only a cursory examination because it must latch onto the government teat known as the Production Tax Credit before it expires in order to bring "savings" to ratepayers. If this project only provides "savings" from tax subsidies, then it's just not worth doing. But AEP stands to make a bundle on its investment in a new wind farm and transmission line. Whoever owns the assets makes the profits.

And wouldn't you know it, Clean Line intervened in AEP's project docket to support this "laudable" project. But only if AEP uses Plains & Eastern instead of building its own transmission line. Or maybe AEP can partner with Clean Line? Or invest in Clean Line? Or AEP can completely redesign the project and change its route? Or perhaps buy the Plains & Eastern Clean Line? Or perhaps scrape Clean Line off the underside of a park bench with a putty knife, chew it up, and spit it out? It seems that Mario Hurtado is pretty much open to anything that would monetize his fruitless efforts to build the Plains & Eastern Clean Line for the past eight years. Sounds like Plains & Eastern is begging AEP to open an escape hatch so they can get this cash cow off the books.

Plains and Eastern is open to PSO or other utilities customers owning all or a portion of the transmission line, commensurate with their transmission needs. In addition, Plains and Eastern is open to PSO or other utilities managing part or all of the Plains & Eastern Project's construction.

If there is a demand for Oklahoma Panhandle wind in eastern Oklahoma, the Project's first phase could be built solely in Oklahoma. Subsequent phases could be built at a later date if market demands warranted such action.

While Plains and Eastern's efforts have been focused on HVDC transmission, other technicalsolutions could be constructed in the Project's right-of-way, such as 345kV AC or 765kV AC. Plains and Eastern is open to modifying theProject to a different technology or voltage level if it offers the best value to customers.

The Project begins near Wind Catcher's generation position in the Panhandle and the route runs within 50 miles of PSO's Tulsa North substation, the proposed interconnection point for the Wind Catcher line. In eastern Oklahoma, there are also other potential interconnection points in PSO's service territory that are even closer to the Plains & Eastern Project's route than the Tulsa North substation and could be utilized to serve PSO load and other loads.

Clean Line wastes a lot of ink touting its "approved route" and purchased easements for its project as a sure thing that will save AEP time and money. Except Plains & Eastern's route is nowhere near AEP's proposed route and does not connect with AEP's substations. Somehow, finding a new route to connect P&E's proposed route with AEP's proposed route gets glossed over. Why would AEP want to take some circuitous route across the state and build many more miles of transmission than it actually needs? But like a polished used car salesman, Clean Line tries to sell its route and "relationships" with landowners as a sure thing. Clean Line seems to take the position that is is somehow superior to AEP in the transmission building game and can do it better.

Furthermore, the Plains and Eastern team has received many questions from landowners and other stakeholders in Oklahoma about the Wind Catcher project. The team has been asked if Plains and Eastern can be involved or assist in the Wind Catcher project given that Plains and Eastern has a construction-ready, long-haul transmission project that runs from the Oklahoma Panhandle to the east and has acquired easements on more than 750 parcels in Oklahoma.

Said no one ever? Who are these people? Do they have names? Why in the world would anyone want a company that has never built anything or realized a dime of revenue to "assist" a public utility that has been around for more than 100 years?

After being approached by representatives of PSO, Oklahoma landowners have asked the Plains and Eastern team if they should work with PSO even though they have already signed an easement with Plains and Eastern.

And what was the "team's" response, Mario, do tell? Did you say, "Transmission lines are like Lays Potato Chips, you can never have just one?" Or did you tell the landowners to slam the door in the face of any PSO (AEP) land agent? Or maybe you told them to try to sell your project to AEP so you'd have enough cash to make the next payment on your easement option contracts?

All of a sudden, Clean Line has changed the focus of its Plains & Eastern project. It's no longer about bringing wind power to "states farther east." It's about bringing wind power to eastern Oklahoma now. Ahhh... desperation, the mother of invention...

The power markets have evolved substantially since Plains and Eastern received its order from this Commission in the past eight years and eastern Oklahoma is now a strong delivery point for the Plains & Eastern Project. The Project could be utilized to accommodate high-voltage either direct current ("HVDC") and alternating current ("AC") transmission solutions to accomplish this interconnection in eastern Oklahoma and Plains and Eastern is willing to engage to consider either option. Mr. Hurtado stated that he would explain that Plains and Eastern is open to building a firstphase of the Project that is located solely in Oklahoma.

And then Mario comes out with this gem.

SPP has no plans to build new transmissionlines in the next decade, making independent transmission necessary to enable large amounts of new wind farms to be built in the Oklahoma Panhandle.

SPP plans and orders built all transmission necessary for reliability and economic reasons within its region. Oklahoma is in the SPP region. If SPP doesn't order it built, it's not "necessary."

And then Clean Line says its project is fully approved.

Plains and Eastern has also secured all key regulatory approvals necessary for construction on that route.

Except the "approval" Clean Line has is for a merchant project that must first secure enough customers to finance its construction. Clean Line does not have "approval" to build a cost allocated line paid for by ratepayers in Oklahoma and other states. It's like using an apple when your recipe calls for an orange. As well, Clean Line's "approval" by the U.S. DOE is currently being challenged in federal court and could very likely simply evaporate when the court rules. And until Clean Line has enough customers to finance its project, it cannot be built. How long is AEP supposed to wait for Clean Line to find enough customers to build the line?

Clean Line says that DOE's routing of its project "approved" a preferred route.

The DOE independently analyzed the proposed route and several alternative routes in itsEIS and ultimately approved a preferred route through its Record of Decision.

But DOE does not have statutory authority to site a transmission route, therefore it cannot "approve" a preferred route. Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act reserves siting for the impacted states. This point is also part of the ongoing federal lawsuit.

Clean Line says landowners in Oklahoma love them.

Plains and Eastern's careful and open approach to landowner interaction and easement acquisition established the company as a solid partner and good neighbor in Oklahoma

Gosh, that's funny. The landowners in Oklahoma that I've talked to despise Clean Line and have vowed to NEVER sign a voluntary easement. Perhaps all Clean Line's Oklahoma friends could be characterized as "low hanging fruit," the easy sells. Anybody with a checkbook could acquire these easement rights. It's the difficult ones (according to Mario's testimony more than 40%) that can delay a project for years. I'm thinking that AEP has never built a transmission project that required eminent domain takings for more than 40% of its route.

Many landowner conversations are on-going, and Plains and Eastern is highly confident that all right-of-way necessary to start construction could be completed in time to allow for construction to start in 2018 and an on-line date in 2020.

Also hard to believe, since Clean Line is depending on the federal government to effect all eminent domain takings for its route, and the U.S. DOJ's attorney absolutely would not commit to the takings during recent oral arguments before a federal judge in Arkansas.

Does Clean Line think AEP has been in business for over 100 years because it's gullible and easily swayed by a fast-talking salesman? AEP may be a bunch of jerks, but they're not stupid. AEP knows a Fifty Foot Car when it sees one.

Or is this just the first act in a poorly presented regulatory Kabuki theater where AEP buys up the Plains & Eastern project and systematically cannibalizes it to extract only those land easements that work with its preferred route? If so, Plains & Eastern is dead. If AEP wanted to build merchant transmission, it would have proposed its own project as a merchant and wouldn't have any opposition at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Instead, AEP wants to build a captive ratepayer funded transmission project completely within the state of Oklahoma. Clean Line's expensive dance with the DOE is completely useless, in that case. But what about Clean Line's agreement to pay the U.S. DOE 2% of its quarterly profits? Would AEP have to pay DOE 2% of its quarterly profits if it bought Plains & Eastern and used DOE's "approved" route? I'm sure that will keep a lot of lawyers busy for a long, long time.

AEP says it will respond to Clean Line's filing by the December 22 deadline. And, hey, Merry Christmas, Clean Line!

So, what's in the 26 minute interview? CFRA wants landowners to know how PAINFUL and EXPENSIVE eminent domain for transmission can be. Is CFRA scaring you yet? According to CFRA, landowners should avoid eminent domain. Well, hey, that sounds like a plan! Except that's where landowners and CFRA part ways. Landowners avoid eminent domain by refusing to negotiate voluntary rights of way and by participating in the regulatory process through objections to the transmission project. They also contact their legislators and work to pass important new laws that protect the landowners from unneeded transmission projects. CFRA's way to avoid eminent domain? Give in. Negotiate with developers. Allow developers to "have use of a certain area of your land" (remember, it's not a sale, it's just use of your land, according to CFRA -- except it IS a sale, it's an encumbrance on your title that allows use and control of your land by someone else in perpetuity). According to CFRA, landowners are supposed to make sure they're being compensated fairly, and "work with developers" to negotiate an easement on a part of their land where they "don't mind if there's an easement on it." CFRA's ultimate goal is for you to have a voluntary transmission easement across your land that you are "happy with." And you're supposed to do all this without the assistance of a lawyer. CFRA says it's not normal for landowners to seek legal counsel before signing legal agreements for the sale of an easement. Even when questioned by the host, CFRA advised that "usually" only a landowner and the transmission developer are involved. But sometimes landowners can get "uncomfortable" when a developer is pissing on their leg and telling them it's raining. If that happens to you, you could get a lawyer, or you can always ask CFRA for help. Hmmm.... wait a tick... CFRA is the one who said you didn't need a lawyer in the first place. How much help do you think they'll be?

And that's the problem. CFRA is no help. In fact, they're a grant-funded transmission cheerleader. While CFRA originally came into existence on the government dole to stand up for small family farmers, it was defunded a long, long time ago. But CFRA has continued to exist on grants from private "funds" and "foundations." While government grants, like all grants, have some strings and deliverables, private entity grants have massive, thick ropes instead of strings. They're not always for the good of the people. And organizations like CFRA must perform all sorts of things in order to unlock the funding that keeps them going.

And telling landowners to roll over and allow new transmission across their land is how they "deliver" to their funders.

Except it's not working. Despite CFRA's best efforts to convince Iowans to accept the Rock Island Clean Line, the only "voice" that developed was the resounding roar of opposition that killed that project for good. RICL has failed. CFRA has failed. The "rural voice" does not support new transmission across their land, for any reason. It's not true that "more public engagement" and "encouraging landowners to talk to developers" is going to change any landowner's mind. It's only making CFRA more and more irrelevant to rural America.

No landowner is ever "happy" with a transmission easement across his land. Ever. There's only degrees of unhappiness. And landowners are stepping up in increasing numbers and refusing to be unhappy at all. They're dedicated to stopping transmission projects altogether, and they're winning.

Hey, maybe we can take up a collection to fund a new grant that CFRA can apply for? I'll call it the Transmission Opposition Grant, and it will require the recipient to build, activate, and mobilize a rural voice supportive of landowner rights. I've put a nickel on the table. Who's in?

That seems to be the conclusion of the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) in its most recent Order regarding the Rusk to Panola transmission connection that will move cheap electricity out of Texas as part of the Southern Cross Transmission project.

Southern Cross is another merchant transmission project supposedly "for wind" that wants to export cheap Texas power into Southeastern states via a new 400-mile HVDC transmission connection. A "merchant" project is one for which investors shoulder the risk because it doesn't have a guaranteed ratepayer-financed revenue stream. Merchant projects are not found needed for reliability, economic, or public policy purposes, therefore ratepayers shall not be forced to finance them. Merchant projects generally negotiate rates with willing customers to finance their projects.

Southern Cross had to jump an additional hurdle that other Midwestern merchant projects did not. Southern Cross proposes to export wind generated transmission from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) into another electric region. ERCOT is its own little one-state electric region island in order to escape the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that applies to other multi-state electric regions. In order to connect ERCOT resources to another region, Southern Cross went through a process at FERC that allowed the connection without compromising ERCOT's independence. Part of that deal required a connection from within ERCOT to another portion of Texas that was not within ERCOT. This is the proposed Rusk to Panola project, a double-circuit 345kV line. Southern Cross's transmission project would then connect to this project and move the electricity further across Louisiana and Mississippi, and connect with the grid in Alabama. Rusk to Panola (known as RPTP by Southern Cross) is only necessary to provide electricity to Southern Cross. RPTP needs the permission of the PUCT to build the project. While PUCT acknowledges that it must approve the project, it may do so with conditions. And the conditions PUCT placed on its approval have been met with resistance by Southern Cross.

Holy shell companies, Batman! RPTP is supposedly owned by the City of Garland, Texas, but will be paid for by some entity known as Rusk Interconnection, LLC. Just like peeling an onion... layer after layer after layer... but back to the main event...

PUCT has directed that any costs caused by the RPTP be assigned to Southern Cross Transmission, and not ERCOT ratepayers. ERCOT ratepayers are already shouldering the burden of ERCOT's CREZ projects, a series of new transmission lines intended to move wind-generated electricity from western Texas to load centers in the eastern part of the state. CREZ hasn't come cheap for ratepayers, and it looks like Texas may have overdone it, supplying so much "cheap" wind power that there is a surplus. Southern Cross proposes to alleviate that surplus by exporting it to other states. But yet, Southern Cross doesn't want to pay the full cost of its project's effect on the ERCOT system, instead purporting that ERCOT ratepayers would receive some "benefit" from Southern Cross and must therefore pay for that "benefit." Except these aren't "benefits" that ERCOT ratepayers need. At best, they are "benefits" that ERCOT ratepayers don't need or want, "benefits" that are foisted upon them because of Southern Cross's project. Who wants to pay for "benefits" they don't need?

PUCT says:

The current market design in ERCOT primarily places the responsibility for system costs on ERCOT customers. This docket has revealed that the Southern Cross DC tie will result in additional costs to ERCOT, which include extraordinary costs that arise specifically from the Southern Cross DC tie, the Garland line, and the Garland or Oncor substations. Because the customers of exported power are not ERCOT customers, under the current market design and rules, they will not bear any responsibility for the extraordinary costs specific to the Southern Cross DC tie, Garland line, and Garland or Oncor substations that they impose on the ERCOT system. Southern Cross believes that those customers—and therefore Southern Cross—should get a free ride as to these extraordinary costs. The Commission disagrees and determines that the public interest demands that ERCOT ratepayers should not bear any of the costs associated with the Garland line, the Oncor substation, the Garland substation, or the Southern Cross DC tie that are properly borne by others. The costs that a user of the ERCOT system causes cannot be determined simply by focusing on the costs of the facilities on the last forty miles of a multi-thousand-mile network. There is little doubt that additional facilities will be required in ERCOT because of the electricity flowing over the Southern Cross DC tie. Southern Cross believes that the costs of those facilities should be borne by customers in ERCOT, not the out-of-ERCOT customers that cause those costs. And Southern Cross opposed even an investigation into whether revisions to the current ERCOT cost-allocation method were needed. Southern Cross attempts to justify this free-ride position based on theoretical benefits that this project will provide to ERCOT.

The Commission agrees, however, that no party met the burden of proof to prove what benefits, if any, Texas ratepayers will enjoy as a result of the Garland line and the Southern Cross DC tie and concurs with the ALJs that any benefits are questionable. This is one of the issues that will be evaluated by ERCOT and if subsequent investigations show any benefits, then any such benefits could be reflected in the new market-design rules. The record in this case does not justify a free ride for these questionable benefits. Texans are in the process of paying billions of dollars for the newly constructed CREZ transmission lines, and for substantial other facilities, that are integral to transmitting electricity to the Garland line and the Southern Cross DC tie. As proposed by Southern Cross Transmission, the Garland line would simply interconnect with these CREZ lines and reap benefits without paying its fair share of costs.

Further, Southern Cross argues that the DC tie will not cause a substantial increase in ancillary services needed in ERCOT, and that no change in the current manner that ancillary costs are assigned is necessary. Southern Cross argues that the DC tie should get a free ride on these extraordinary costs also. The Commission agrees that this is a highly technical question and has requested ERCOT to evaluate this matter. The Commission also agrees, however, with ERCOT and other parties that additional ancillary services will likely be required to support the operation of the DC tie, and at certain levels, that requirement may be significant. And, as with the other extraordinary costs discussed in this Order, it is appropriate that the cost causer be responsible for the costs, not for ERCOT customers to bear the costs of others. The Commission does note that Southern Cross softened its position some by agreeing that it could and would provide reactive-power service through the DC tie.

One benefit offered by Southern Cross is the lowering of the price of electricity in ERCOT during high-load periods. However, Southern Cross Transmission's analysis does not appropriately account for the effect on the ERCOT energy market, which sends market signals through scarcity pricing when electricity resources are becoming scarce. Distortions to ERCOT's market signals could prevent the energy-only market from appropriately responding to shortages, leading to inadequate resources in this market. This risk to ERCOT's market structure and the grid's reliability must be assessed and addressed through recommended changes.

PUCT did a great job fishing out the "but for" costs of the project, that is those costs that would not occur "but for" the construction of RPTP. Other states could take a lesson from this Order.

Southern Cross has asked for another rehearing on this matter by PUCT. Just paying their own way doesn't seem to be an option for Southern Cross. Is that because the project is not profitable unless it is subsidized by ERCOT ratepayers?

Meanwhile, Southern Cross doesn't seem to be very popular in Mississippi, where numerous landowners have intervened in the permitting process at the Mississippi Public Service Commission. Bravo, landowners! To see the Mississippi docket, go here and search for Case Year 2017, Case Type UA, and Case No. 079.

Southern Cross seems to have at least as many problems as the Clean Line projects proposed to its north. It's a fact: Landowners in fly-over states object vociferously to the use of eminent domain on their property to benefit electric ratepayers in other states and financially support private enterprise that wants to make a killing speculating in the electric power markets. Multi-state transmission projects "for wind" are money pits on regulatory minefields that will never succeed.

About the Author

Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

AboutStopPATH Blog

StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project. The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view. If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty. People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself. If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.